Is this true?
- Thread starter Barciad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, that is incredibly impressive, and something I certainly didn't expect. Though I still affirm that Han shot first, with this I guess we can move on, and admit to ourselves that George Lucas is no longer one of nerd-cultures public enemies.
But ya, if episodes XII through IX could contain no Jar Jar, that would be swell...
But ya, if episodes XII through IX could contain no Jar Jar, that would be swell...
Okay, I can understand how Lucas demonstrably showing that he is actually quite a Good Guy makes it hard to stay mad at him for something fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. And that's probably/hopefully what you mean.
But still, the way you've worded this still seems petty and self-centered. "You gave a massive amount of money to a good cause? Okay, we're straight now."
But still, the way you've worded this still seems petty and self-centered. "You gave a massive amount of money to a good cause? Okay, we're straight now."
One of these things is completely irrelevant to the other.
George Lucas is a good guy because he donated a staggering amount of money to charity. CHEERS!
George Lucas is a bad director because he hoisted those godawful prequels on us. JEERS!
Both those things can be true at the same time.
George Lucas is a good guy because he donated a staggering amount of money to charity. CHEERS!
George Lucas is a bad director because he hoisted those godawful prequels on us. JEERS!
Both those things can be true at the same time.
I read a lot of the comments in that story's comments section. The amount of praise fanboys are hefting George's way (coupled with serious mea culpa apologies for griping and hating on him over the years) is impressive.
The greatest irony here is that George made his first Star Wars movies for kids in the 5-12 year old range. And he also made the second trilogy with that age group in mind. Funny, but kids who watched the prequels when they were in that age demographic gripe far less or none at all compared to everyone else. "Oh, woe is me!!! George be rui'ng me childhood memories with blah-blah-blah!!!"
I was never a part of that crowd. I saw the original trilogy when it first came out. I was 5 and I loved the entire trilogy. And I enjoyed the prequels as an adult.
The only things about the prequels that bugged me were Part II and III's painful romance scenes (George just cannot do romance) and Part II's beginning where they made Anakin act like a 10 year old to create friction between him and Obi Wan just 20 seconds after they were having an old friends' chuckle together.
That was it.
And now he's putting all 4 billion plus into a charity fund. AND contrary to what we'd expect there's a good chance that ALL of that money will go to the charity--not just what's left after taxes--specifically because it's ALL being given away to a non-profit.
I guess George didn't do it all for the Wookie. All along he did it for the children.
Bravo, George!!! We salute you, Mr. Lucas!!!
The greatest irony here is that George made his first Star Wars movies for kids in the 5-12 year old range. And he also made the second trilogy with that age group in mind. Funny, but kids who watched the prequels when they were in that age demographic gripe far less or none at all compared to everyone else. "Oh, woe is me!!! George be rui'ng me childhood memories with blah-blah-blah!!!"
I was never a part of that crowd. I saw the original trilogy when it first came out. I was 5 and I loved the entire trilogy. And I enjoyed the prequels as an adult.
The only things about the prequels that bugged me were Part II and III's painful romance scenes (George just cannot do romance) and Part II's beginning where they made Anakin act like a 10 year old to create friction between him and Obi Wan just 20 seconds after they were having an old friends' chuckle together.
That was it.
And now he's putting all 4 billion plus into a charity fund. AND contrary to what we'd expect there's a good chance that ALL of that money will go to the charity--not just what's left after taxes--specifically because it's ALL being given away to a non-profit.
I guess George didn't do it all for the Wookie. All along he did it for the children.
Bravo, George!!! We salute you, Mr. Lucas!!!
[HEADING=2]Call out the NUNS!!![/HEADING]
*sigh*
Completely unrelated but every time I hear or read 'is this true?' in a serious tone, all I can respond with is 'Yes, it is true... this man has no dick!' and imagine William Atherton...
...
Anyway, OT... heard about it yesterday, props to the guy... still hate him as a concept writer though... -_-
Completely unrelated but every time I hear or read 'is this true?' in a serious tone, all I can respond with is 'Yes, it is true... this man has no dick!' and imagine William Atherton...
...
Anyway, OT... heard about it yesterday, props to the guy... still hate him as a concept writer though... -_-
Some more details about this would be lovely. Still, I have to say that's quite an act of generosity there. Kind of surprising.
Lucas: "As humans, our greatest tool for survival is our ability to think and to adapt"
It's also our greatest tool for destruction. The broke, jobless uneducated homeless are only the enemy of those who have something to lose - Lucas is one of them.
It's also our greatest tool for destruction. The broke, jobless uneducated homeless are only the enemy of those who have something to lose - Lucas is one of them.
There's something about the word "donate" and the sum "$4,000,000,000" that tends to permanently change people viewpoint on irrelevant things.burningdragoon said:
I read the last line of the article and thought: George Lucas, the hero that charities deserve, but not the one they need.
Good for him. That's a good start on his philanthropic mission. (Course, schools will still be underfunded by several dozen billion dollars but that's another story).
Good for him. That's a good start on his philanthropic mission. (Course, schools will still be underfunded by several dozen billion dollars but that's another story).
No, it is not true. Even if the straight press picks up on it, it is not true.
Most people do not know this, but Episode I almost never saw a theater release. This was due to the fact that Lucasfilm was attempting to heft a 110% royalty onto box office grosses. Meaning, that if someone paid $7 USD for a ticket to see "the Phantom Menace" the theater showing that film would have to pay 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm $7.70. This of course was in addition to other outrageous contractual obligations that Lucasfilm attempted to place in its original exhibitor contract.
After a time, 20th Century Fox stepped in and actually went to bat for the theaters, convincing Lucasfilm to take less of the Box Office Gross, and ensuring that the film actually had a release in theaters. At the time, I worked in film distribution, and I remember Lucas saying in an interview that his primary goal with Star Wars Episode I was to inspire people to consider religion. . . an outright lie that was clear to anyone working in the industry at the time.
So, I choose not to believe anything of the sort, especially because it has been announced in the press, when a truly humble person would have kept the whole affair quiet.
Most people do not know this, but Episode I almost never saw a theater release. This was due to the fact that Lucasfilm was attempting to heft a 110% royalty onto box office grosses. Meaning, that if someone paid $7 USD for a ticket to see "the Phantom Menace" the theater showing that film would have to pay 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm $7.70. This of course was in addition to other outrageous contractual obligations that Lucasfilm attempted to place in its original exhibitor contract.
After a time, 20th Century Fox stepped in and actually went to bat for the theaters, convincing Lucasfilm to take less of the Box Office Gross, and ensuring that the film actually had a release in theaters. At the time, I worked in film distribution, and I remember Lucas saying in an interview that his primary goal with Star Wars Episode I was to inspire people to consider religion. . . an outright lie that was clear to anyone working in the industry at the time.
So, I choose not to believe anything of the sort, especially because it has been announced in the press, when a truly humble person would have kept the whole affair quiet.
Aren't you the cynic? It's one thing to say that you'll wait for more reputable sources to confirm the story. It's quite another to go "Because of past doings, this man is completely incapable of giving to charity."Ryan Hughes said:
And who said anything about being humble? Nobody. What we're all saying is that if this is a genuine thing, then he is a GENEROUS person. Humble? No. But a good man nonetheless? Sure.
I am not a cynic, or perhaps I just am when it comes to George Lucas. Look, even if every cent went to charity eventually, Lucas would not be doing this out of generosity, rather, he would be doing it to make himself be perceived as generous. I have literally watched Lucasfilm put dozens of small theaters -and hundreds of people- out of business and their jobs for very minor contract violations on Episode I, such as the pre-screening of a print, or of technical problems that resulted in what Lucasfilm defined as sub-par exhibition.Wing Dairu said:
I suppose it cannot be helped that I do not like the man, regardless of the quality of his films, I will never see him as generous, and can never see him as something to extol.
I can see it. George has never been a bad guy. You can love or hate his directing chops, his producing skills, his writing style, and whatever roles he's filled over the years, but it doesn't mean he's a less-than-charitable human being.
I don't think he was ever really in it for the money: he had a story he wanted to tell. Hell, the fact that he had story treatments of VII, VIII and IX complete, but never made them shows just how little he really cared for the money: he could have made so much more.
Well... okay, Lucasfilm is putting out the prequel trilogy in 3D, which feels quite a bit like a money grab, but a new trilogy would have made him so much more (probably; production costs can be a *****).
I can, up to a point, understand why some people are less than happy with George, but that doesn't really reflect on him personally, just professionally. He's selling Lucasfilm because he wants to move on, so assuming he has the money he needs to do that, it's not outside any realm of possibility that he'd be philanthropic with the rest of it.
CAPTCHA: Let it be.
Hellz yea, captcha. Whisper those words of wisdom.
I don't think he was ever really in it for the money: he had a story he wanted to tell. Hell, the fact that he had story treatments of VII, VIII and IX complete, but never made them shows just how little he really cared for the money: he could have made so much more.
Well... okay, Lucasfilm is putting out the prequel trilogy in 3D, which feels quite a bit like a money grab, but a new trilogy would have made him so much more (probably; production costs can be a *****).
I can, up to a point, understand why some people are less than happy with George, but that doesn't really reflect on him personally, just professionally. He's selling Lucasfilm because he wants to move on, so assuming he has the money he needs to do that, it's not outside any realm of possibility that he'd be philanthropic with the rest of it.
CAPTCHA: Let it be.
Hellz yea, captcha. Whisper those words of wisdom.
I cut the irrelevant parts. I don't know enough about the man to make a judgment about the other things you said, but I have to disagree with this last point. While telling everyone you donated money certainly isn't humble, I think humbleness is the wrong approach. Making how much you donate clear is a powerful tool to convince others to donate or to spread your message. If Bill Gates was always talking about the importance of charity but people were unaware he gave almost half his net worth to charity, it would have a much less profound impact. Likewise, if Lucas said at some point "As humans, our greatest tool for survival is our ability to think and to adapt" without making it clear that he was giving billions to charity, noone would report that he said it or really care. The combination of his message, his donation, and his publicity makes it effective in a way that it wouldn't be if he kept it quiet. I still see your point, but I disagree with it.Ryan Hughes said:
OT: It seems like a nice thing to do. I don't really think it fixes the mistakes he made with his films, but it certainly overshadows them. I think it will change how a lot of people view him.
Unless there is a 100% capital gains tax giving the money to charity would be worse than keeping it every time, even if the donation is tax deductible he still would only break even with taxes in a perfect situation. No I think he just decided he didn't need more money all that bad and that charity was a good place to put it. Almost all human beings strive to do good, or at the very least think of ourselves as good. Why should the wealthy be any diffrent?Olrod said: